Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

There is *no privacy on iOS* as a direct result of the need to constantly
do everything on Apple's servers - instead of directly through the carrier.
--
BTW, there's no privacy on WhatsApp either (for the very same reasons).

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

>> WhatsApp is quite seperate from Facebook. WhatsApp's legal documents
>> are quite specific about WhatsAppnot sharing user data with Facebook.
>
> You might class *this* as FUD, but what's to stop them changing the
> legal arrangements?

Hi Andy,

I doubt any of the iKooks even realize they are logging into iMessage
servers every day of their lives, just as WhatApp users do the same.

What's fundamentally different?
*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

There is *no privacy on iOS* as a direct result of the need to constantly
do everything on Apple's servers - instead of directly through the carrier.

BTW, there's no privacy on WhatsApp either (for the same reasons).

I see nothing fundamentally different between the two in terms of privacy.
Do you?

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

> But I simply meant that those on iMessage here can only talk with the
> 21% of users that have an iPhone, the rest are on Android. We don't have
> any envy as you claim :-)

There is no fundamental difference between how iOS messages go through
Apple's iMessages servers than how WhatsApp messages go thru Meta's.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
> >>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
> >>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
> >>
> >> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.
> >
> > Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
> > much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
> > like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
> > the same functionality.
>
> iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
> the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
> not practically feasible between Android devices from different
> manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
> as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
> dependencies).
>
> So while messaging with, eg, Signal, can be a full and valuable
> experience, it is "islanded" within Signal's feature set.

Note that Jörg is comparing iMessage to the other mentioned IM
platforms.

Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.

So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.

And how's iMessage's "feature set" only on/between Apple devices
supposed to be better than - for example - WhatsApp's feature set
on/between Apple *and* non-Apple devices?

> > There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
> >
> > 1. The blue bubbles. :-D
>
> Not relevant in itself - just the way Apple presents it. (Oddly too
> since in later iOS and Mac versions the Message app icon is green - not
> blue... mysterious).
>
> > 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> > provider Apple.
>
> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.

WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
"and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
that means threading (like is done in NetNews).

> So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.
>
> > You are really expert at this.
>
> True.

I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
cannot do something.

Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
about it.

Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote

> I'm not an Apple fan but I don't think that's true.
>
> Based on the information available up to 2021, Android had a total of
> 574 vulnerabilities discovered in that year, which was a reduction from
> the 859 in 2020. However, 79% of these were characterized by low attack
> complexity. On the other hand, iOS had fewer vulnerabilities but tended
> to have more serious ones, including zero-days
>
> <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/2021-mobile-security-android-more-vulnerabilities-ios-more-zero-days/>

For the past three years, iOS has been adding multiple zero-day holes per
month (none of which, by their very definition, has Apple ever found).

Apple had to be told (by Project Zero for example) that huge portions of
the iOS code couldn't possibly _ever_ have been tested.

We covered this in gory detail, by the way, with all the references, so
it's interesting that the iKooks are completely unaware of the horrid QA at
Apple which even Craig Federighi's internal letters show is his own words.

All of this we've covered.
You're just ignorant of the facts.

For example...

The fact that iOS has ten times the active exploits is due to the way that
iOS is released (as a primitive monolith although it got better in iOS 16).

Proof here.
https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog

You being completely ignorant of these facts (all of which we've discussed
on this very newsgroup) doesn't make these facts go away, Brian.

They're still facts whether or not you're completely ignorant of them.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 10:38, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote:
> >> On 09.12.23 16:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> The (Android) app is still on the Google Play website [1] [2]. I
> >>> downloaded and installed it, so the app itself is not (yet) 'killed'.
> >>
> >> Do you feel better now?
> >
> > Not really! I've a totally useless (for me) app on my phone, polluting
> > my Apps screen (well, the last page of it)! :-)
> >
> > I think I'll keep it till the dust has settled down. (As I mentioned,
> > I couldn't care less about this app or iMessage in general. It's a
> > non-issue in the real world.)
>
> It may be a non-issue in -your- world, but in the real world there are
> Android users who would want this sort of ability.

As I've indicated before- and others have also mentioned - in this
case "the real world" is somewhat sarcastic wording for "anywhere
*except* the US (and possibly NA)".

For 'the real world', this whole issue is as silly as having vendor
specific *and* exclusive, e-mail, web, NetNews, telephony, surface mail,
you name it.

Yes, it's a pity that there isn't one formal (de jure) IM standard
(yet). But the de facto one is surely better than clinging to a vendor
exclusive implementation which cannot communicate with the vast majority
of the rest of the world.

It's fine to stay in your iMessage bubble, as long as you realize that
it *is* a bubble.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

> These type of limitations are what iOS users don't like

Hi badgolferman,

...To that very point...

I communicate with Apple users all the time & I see no problems on my side.

It's only the Apple users who are vehemently complaining.
Not Android users.

> I can understand why Android users are trying to break into the iMessage
> world and why Apple is resisting.

I don't think that's a correct statement.

It's not the Android users complaining.
It's the Apple users who complain.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>> Why would I want to pay �2/month "entrance fee" to the walled garden,
>> when we expect the gates to be opened (to some extent) next year?
>
> What walled garden? Apple devices roam wherever they like. No walls.
>
> OTOH, they have a superb eco-system between Apple devices that excludes
> non Apple systems. iMessage service is one of them.

Alan Browne is wrong. Dead wrong. He doesn't know how iOS works.
He's never tried _not logging into the walled garden_ for example.
I have.

It is rather telling that this Apple iKook has absolutely no idea he's
logging into _many_ different Apple servers every day of his entire life.
<https://i.postimg.cc/7P7NCctS/locked-01.jpg> AppleID is locked by Apple

Where if you don't log in constantly, Apple _bricks_ the walled garden!
<https://i.postimg.cc/4dHQQFfk/locked-02.jpg> Password was always good

For example, here's the prompt when you don't log in daily to iMessages.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> iMessage walled garden

And, as another example, here's the prompt if you don't log into iCloud.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> iCloud walled garden

Worse... if you _refuse_ to log into the walled garden, Apple bricks the
device in terms of making everything inside the walled garden lock up.
<https://i.postimg.cc/vTdfLY2f/locked-03.jpg> Apple wants a gov license!!!

And the only way to unbrick your own device, is to lose all your privacy
because Apple requires you to present a government ID in person to get your
own iPad back from them if you don't log into Apple servers every day of
your life for the rest of your life.

Ask me how I know this...
--
(Hint: Those are my screenshots from last month).

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>> An idiot's business model. Grasping android users? Never ever!
>
> It also came with a free period so people could decide if it was of
> value to them. $2/month is cheap ... if you get that much value from
> it. If you don't, nobody is forcing you.

I tried it last night before Apple broke it (and I reported on that too).
<https://i.postimg.cc/GmnXTgxp/beeperapp.jpg>

It doesn't work the way you think it does...

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

> Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
> example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
> platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
> Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.
>
> So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.

It's no longer shocking how ignorant iKooks like Alan Browne are.

For example, PulseSMS does it all also.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>> Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.
>
> In proper E2E they wouldn't be able to.
> But you have to trust that that is what is happening.

The iKooks don't realize that they're both exactly the same process.

There is no fundamental difference between how iOS messages go through
Apple's iMessages servers than how WhatsApp messages go thru Meta's.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
> the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
> not practically feasible between Android devices from different
> manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
> as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
> dependencies).

The iKooks are completely unaware iCloud & iMessages are different logins!
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpmJKw7p/locked-04.jpg> This is the iCloud login
<https://i.postimg.cc/rwyGPpV9/locked-05.jpg> This is the iMessage login

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote

>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY think Apple
>> would permit this?
>
> Do have any reference/proof for this? (I didn't see any such thing in
> the article, nor in the original Business Insider article.)

Frank,
I provided the references last night.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> It's not about the colour of the bubbles - it's about the underlying
> functionality of iMessage.

*iMessage === WhatsApp*
(works the same)

On 2023-12-09 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>>
>>>> It's not about the "blue", it's about the functionality of iMessage.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. If Android- and iPhone-users want exchange messages there are
>>> much superior solutions around: Mancufacturer-independent messengers
>>> like Signal, Telegram, Threema, WhatsApp and a lot more with absolutely
>>> the same functionality.
>>
>> iMessage is a subset (or co-set) of the iCloud functionality that makes
>> the Apple "ecosphere" work seamlessly between Apple devices. This is
>> not practically feasible between Android devices from different
>> manufacturers (who want to lock in users themselves), Linux and Windows
>> as keeping the specs in-line and up-to-date would be a nightmare. (aka:
>> dependencies).
>>
>> So while messaging with, eg, Signal, can be a full and valuable
>> experience, it is "islanded" within Signal's feature set.
>
> Note that Jörg is comparing iMessage to the other mentioned IM
> platforms.
>
> Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
> example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
> platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
> Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.
>
> So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.
>
> And how's iMessage's "feature set" only on/between Apple devices
> supposed to be better than - for example - WhatsApp's feature set
> on/between Apple *and* non-Apple devices?

Where iMessage (the service and/or the app) provides extensions related
to various Apple devices, 3rd party extensions and so on.

>>> There are only two reasons why iPhone-users prefer iMsg:
>>>
>>> 1. The blue bubbles. :-D
>>
>> Not relevant in itself - just the way Apple presents it. (Oddly too
>> since in later iOS and Mac versions the Message app icon is green - not
>> blue... mysterious).
>>
>>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
>>> provider Apple.
>>
>> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
>> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
>> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
>> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
>
> WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
> "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
> that means threading (like is done in NetNews).
>
>> So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.
>>
>>> You are really expert at this.
>>
>> True.
>
> I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
> implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
> cannot do something.

Oh - of course I know they do all sorts of useful things. Indeed I was
on a Facetime meeting yesterday and missed some functionality of MS
Teams. (or Zoom for that matter).

Where it all falls apart for such is how one would do deep integration
as Apple does when one has a Windows machine at work, a Linux machine at
home, and Android in their pocket... you can integrate, there is nothing
technical barring it ... but doing such across the span of many devices,
OS's, manufacturers (all pining to lock in customers to their products)
is not likely to be "seamless" or easy to maintain.

> Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
> things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
> that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
> about it.

Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
that.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote

>> But I'm looking for what the "value equation" is, as I don't get it
>> yet.
>
> I have to break it to you, but there are lots and lots of people who care
> mostly about what other people think of them, and measure that by
> superficialities like fashion, or blue bubbles.

I don't disagree, but why is it always the Apple users who are complaining
about the color of bubbles and not the Android users?

For example, I communicate with iPhone owners all the time, and I have no
problems communicating with them. I don't care what color my chats are.

In fact, I can set the color of my SMS/MMS chats to any number of colors.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

It's surprising the Apple owners can't do something that simple to do.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
> missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
> Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
> lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
> that.

The Android owners aren't the ones complaining, Alan Browne.

We can set the colors of each and every chat to whatever colors we want to.
<https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/>

We simply don't care what color our "bubbles" show up as.
Only Apple owners care about that.

Which is why you complain so much how bad it is for you on iOS, Alan.

On 2023-12-09 19:12, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 11:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04 AM EST, "Your Name"
>>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM EST, "Alan Browne"
>>>>>>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register non
>>>>>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and Canada.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple device's
>>>>>>>> phone
>>>>>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of
>>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>>> To be seen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY
>>>>>>> think Apple
>>>>>>> would permit this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get
>>>>>>> over it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid colour a
>>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>>>> "green with
>>>>> envy".
>>>>
>>>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>>>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>>>
>>> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.
>>
>> Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.
>
> In proper E2E they wouldn't be able to.  But you have to trust that that
> is what is happening.

The goal of Meta is profit, obviously. If they sniff messages, that
would be noticed when trying to monetize it somehow.

>>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be
>>>> able to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>>
>>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
>>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>>>
>>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>>
>> You got the point wrong :-D
>
> Not at all.  Apple's system is not a walled garden.  More like an
> exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
> of the club you want.

The point is that *here* there are only 21% of iPhones, so those users
have to get out or their walled garden to talk with the people, 80% of
which are on Android. So, they don't use iMessages.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 19:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:

....

>>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
>>> provider Apple.
>>
>> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
>> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
>> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
>> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
>
> WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
> "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
> that means threading (like is done in NetNews).

I think I saw a reply to poster thing in WA.

>
>> So, much more than the blue-bubble and encryption.
>>
>>> You are really expert at this.
>>
>> True.
>
> I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
> implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
> cannot do something.
>
> Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
> things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
> that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
> about it.

Right :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 13:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
[...]
> > Note that Jörg is comparing iMessage to the other mentioned IM
> > platforms.
> >
> > Those IM platforms *are* available on multiple OS platforms. For
> > example WhatsApp is available on Android, iOS, macOS and for other
> > platforms there's WhatsApp Web. So WhatsApp not only works between
> > Apple devices, but also with/between the other mentioned devices.
> >
> > So what you say "is not practically feasible", *is* actually possible.
> >
> > And how's iMessage's "feature set" only on/between Apple devices
> > supposed to be better than - for example - WhatsApp's feature set
> > on/between Apple *and* non-Apple devices?
>
> Where iMessage (the service and/or the app) provides extensions related
> to various Apple devices, 3rd party extensions and so on.

Can you eloborate on that? What kind of extensions? What kind of extra
functionality do they offer, which is not or not likely to be available
on other IM platforms?

[...]

> > I fully accept that you know what iMessage can do, but don't -
> > implicitly - assume that another IM platform - which you do *not* use -
> > cannot do something.
>
> Oh - of course I know they do all sorts of useful things. Indeed I was
> on a Facetime meeting yesterday and missed some functionality of MS
> Teams. (or Zoom for that matter).
>
> Where it all falls apart for such is how one would do deep integration
> as Apple does when one has a Windows machine at work, a Linux machine at
> home, and Android in their pocket... you can integrate, there is nothing
> technical barring it ... but doing such across the span of many devices,
> OS's, manufacturers (all pining to lock in customers to their products)
> is not likely to be "seamless" or easy to maintain.

Yes, I fully understand that and why you appreciate the "deep
integration", "seamless", etc.. But hopefully you realize that also
comes at a price / with limits, as this iMessage versus other IM
platforms example shows. Yes, you can step outside the "ecosystem", but
while you're in the ecosystem, there are limits, which people outside
the ecosystem do not have. Bbut they do have other costs/limits. Nothing
is perfect, nothing is 'better' ('Frank's law' at work) and all that
jazz.

> > Yes, we have a fair share of people who claim all kinds of (negative)
> > things about products which they do not use, but most of us are not in
> > that set of people. We just use stuff without getting all religious
> > about it.
>
> Indeed - however - what the android "complainers and moaners" keep
> missing about Apple's eco-sphere is the integration within the "club".
> Thus the devices I use daily - a lot - Mac, iPhone, Watch and to a
> lesser extent iPad are quite seamlessly integrated - iMessage is part of
> that.

I've a loved one who keeps me on the straight and narrow and vice
versa. That helps both me and hir! But (s)he *does* use WhatsApp,
after all, we both live in 'the real world'! :-)

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

>> Not at all.� Apple's system is not a walled garden.� More like an
>> exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
>> of the club you want.
>
> The point is that *here* there are only 21% of iPhones, so those users
> have to get out of their walled garden to talk with the people, 80% of
> which are on Android. So, they don't use iMessages.

Carlos brings up the valid points that most of the world is on Android, and
most of the world seems to use WhatsApp (which is the same as iMessage
anyway, in terms of needing to connect to a middleman mothership server).

But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 19:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> >>> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
> >>> provider Apple.
> >>
> >> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
> >> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
> >> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
> >> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
> >
> > WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
> > "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
> > that means threading (like is done in NetNews).
>
> I think I saw a reply to poster thing in WA.

Yes, you can address a particular user in a group with "@<user>", but
it is not threaded, i.e. your message is just at the bottom of the
screen, not somewhere in the middle where <user>'s message is.

[...]

On 2023-12-09 21:05, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Not at all.  Apple's system is not a walled garden.  More like an
>>> exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
>>> of the club you want.
>>
>> The point is that *here* there are only 21% of iPhones, so those users
>> have to get out of their walled garden to talk with the people, 80% of
>> which are on Android. So, they don't use iMessages.
>
> Carlos brings up the valid points that most of the world is on Android, and
> most of the world seems to use WhatsApp (which is the same as iMessage
> anyway, in terms of needing to connect to a middleman mothership server).
>
> But even those on Android in the US have no problem communicating with
> iPhone users; it's always mainly the iPhone users who complain about it.

That is not so.

Android users have to communicate with iPhone users using third party
tools, like WhatsApp, thats not popular in the USA, or ancient protocols
like SMS, which lack features. Or use MMS, which in many countries it is
expensive, or is being phased out.

So yes, we do have problems and we do complain.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-12-09 14:45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 19:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 11:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 01:00, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-12-09 06:46, Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 9, 2023 at 12:21:04 AM EST, "Your Name"
>>>>>> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 01:57:47 +0000, Tyrone said:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2023 at 7:12:02 PM EST, "Alan Browne"
>>>>>>>> <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/app-gives-android-users-ability-092001890.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Beeper Mini reverse engineers iMessage's protocol's to register
>>>>>>>>> non
>>>>>>>>> Apple phones on the Apple iCloud data base.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reverse engineering a protocol is not illegal in the US and
>>>>>>>>> Canada.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm less sure that using such to "register" a non Apple
>>>>>>>>> device's phone
>>>>>>>>> number on the Apple servers would not violate Apple's terms of
>>>>>>>>> service.
>>>>>>>>> To be seen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As expected, Apple has already killed this. Did anyone REALLY
>>>>>>>> think Apple
>>>>>>>> would permit this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't you jealous Android dweebs just get an iPhone and get
>>>>>>>> over it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's only brainless morons who give a crap about what stupid
>>>>>>> colour a
>>>>>>> bubble is in a messaging app anyway.  :-\
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. Brainless morons = jealous Android users. They are literally
>>>>>> "green with
>>>>>> envy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Us? Not at all. There is only 21% users of iphones here, they have
>>>>> nobody to talk with on iMessage, so they come to WhatsApp :-P
>>>>
>>>> Owned by Meta (Facebook) where the user is the product.
>>>
>>> Sure, but Meta doesn't sniff the conversations.
>>
>> In proper E2E they wouldn't be able to.  But you have to trust that
>> that is what is happening.
>
> The goal of Meta is profit, obviously. If they sniff messages, that
> would be noticed when trying to monetize it somehow.
>
>
>>>>> Here they need to open up their walled garden, if they want to be
>>>>> able to talk with anyone. Not our problem, but theirs.
>>>>
>>>> No walled garden: Apple devices roam wherever they want.  A walled
>>>> garden means self contained and limiting.
>>>>
>>>> Fabulous eco-system, OTOH.
>>>
>>> You got the point wrong :-D
>>
>> Not at all.  Apple's system is not a walled garden.  More like an
>> exclusive country club where you get more but can also go anywhere off
>> of the club you want.
>
> The point is that *here* there are only 21% of iPhones, so those users
> have to get out or their walled garden to talk with the people, 80% of
> which are on Android. So, they don't use iMessages.
iPhone users don't have to leave the club at all. The world outside the
club is accessible from inside the club. It's the inside of the club
that is not accessible from the outside.
This is also why it is not a "walled garden" - by the way.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-12-09 21:22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 19:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 10:03, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> On 09.12.23 14:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 00:21, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> 2. The reliable end-to-end-encryption and the associated trust in the
>>>>> provider Apple.
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed - but there are other 'functions' within iMessage such as
>>>> being able to edit a sent text (that the receiver also sees), reply to
>>>> and have the reply connected to the specific individual message,
>>>> deleting messages (that are deleted on the receiver's phone), etc.
>>>
>>> WhatsApp can do most of that as well, with the possible exception of
>>> "and have the reply connected to the specific individual message", if
>>> that means threading (like is done in NetNews).
>>
>> I think I saw a reply to poster thing in WA.
>
> Yes, you can address a particular user in a group with "@<user>", but
> it is not threaded, i.e. your message is just at the bottom of the
> screen, not somewhere in the middle where <user>'s message is.

A message in the middle would be missed.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.